tv [untitled] January 24, 2011 7:00pm-7:30pm PST
, it is a knowledge -- they are constantly writing and exposing to other people's commentary. you have a constant dialogue about the meaning of what those historical facts are. we need someone who can draw on all of the best practices to develop all the kinds of stories that we have and the points of view that we have. it is an effort to understand the many ways the people interpreter who did what and what does it mean today? not just what is known about san
francisco. but to interpret that. thank you for your interest. we hope he will appoint someone who is qualified according to the charter. >> are we ready to start the opposition. ? i am not speaking in an official capacity. i have gotten to know the current holder of the position who just spoke, but he did not speak at the last time. i am very concerned he is the only one of three nominations you have before you who is the
only seat holder who has not been renominated. there was a considerable amount of discussion at the last meeting, and there's no doubt will be again -- there no doubt will be again about what is a historiean. -- historian. we should not just discussed semantics. no doubt the nominee, as others have said, is well qualified for other seats on this body, but i don't think even his intense interest in particular projects here and there and successes qualify as historian.
the nomination in context raises very serious questions. mr. buckley voted against the landmarking of the library, which is what the mayor wanted. it seems to be a serious question. the he vote independently to a landmark that building which was the recommendation on the narrowest margin from the historic preservation commission to deal landmarks -- do landmarks? some might not have been happy with a landmark that might have interfered with the demolition of the existing building. the questions raised include,
and do you want to get people that are more likely to get along as opposed to folks who are independent? the want to give people the best benefit of an excellent background and independence to serve the public with respect to landmarks? while you don't have buckley's nomination before you, the current nominee is someone who should not be supported. thank you. >> i am a architectural historian and was most recently the research assistant for professor emeritus -- meredith of princeton that passed away
a couple weeks ago. we have a superlative city commissioner in seat number four . i dare say the san francisco museum and historical society should retain his full energies. that given, you are being asked to substitute someone of local enthusiasm for a nationally recognized historian who is teaching at a preeminent national college of the united states. what does this say? it must be explained. if james buckley is not going to
be replaced, what about robert churney? he did a superlative excellent job. i would urge you to consider that the atmosphere in the city on planning issues is heavily influenced by planning, development, money. we saw today in the chronicle, a complete opposite statement of the central park has no preservation control. there could be nothing further from the truth. it is a landmark. these other kinds of things that are happening in the city. the chronicle really needs a historian on board.
the historic preservation commission needs an academic historian or a full-time historian. someone who has dedicated their professional career to that. that is a requirement. i urge you that in this nomination, you're rejecting someone who continues to serve our interested in the city. our tourist industry is very much a blank. -- linked. [chime] >> good afternoon, supervisors.
in the city of san francisco, we have so many boards and commissions. there are no qualifications required to give back to the city. the historic preservation commission is very different. there are explicit qualifications except for the seat that is the general seat. this seat number four has some very specific qualifications. when i looked at the citadel, there was not one word -- at the
resume of mr. johns, there was not one word of his dedication outside his law practice. that is not requested. i hope you will not appoint him. thank you. >> welcome to you. i'm a member of the san francisco preservation consortium. i am speaking for myself. you have just heard testimony about how very well qualified he is to be on the historic
preservation commission certainly, he could be a great addition to the commission. seat 7 is open, and seat 5 he might be qualified. a professional such as law, land use, professional desgin. -- design. it sounds like a really good description of mr. johns' qualifications. it is a stretch to see him as qualified for seat number 4. it states a very specific
requirement of a professional historian. he has a great interest. he has experience. but he is not a professional historian. i think you have heard a description of what a professional historian would be. a historian is defined not by definitions but of the secretary of interior's qualification statements. i don't know if you have in front of you, but the minimum professional qualification is a graduate degree in history are closely related field.
or a bachelor's degree in history with one of the following. two years in writing, teaching, interpretation or demonstrable activity. with a bachelor's degree in history. think about what the related field could be. it would have to be closely related. [chime] thank you. >> good afternoon, members of the committee. i would like to know if there is no question about his passion and dedication to historic
preservation. a central issue for our organization is with this particular seat and whether the nominee meets the standards as set forth by the city charter. in this respect, it seems all speakers would agree that he does not meet the academic qualifications to qualify as a historian. he would certainly be qualified for other seats on the commission but did not require credentials in a particular discipline. our concern is not for the seat, it is the integrity of proposition j and the city charter. it requires minimum qualifications and standards for particular disciplines
relating to historic preservation. opening the door to one seat will certainly opened the door to all of the others. we do not believe it is consistent with proposition j. we urge you to not recommend this qualification. >> my name is vincent marsh, and i served in the landmarks part of the city. it is essential to have qualified people serve on the board. in my present capacity, i serve as the co-share of the presentation consortium. we believe that the candidate
does not meet the qualifications of the historian pursuant to the secretary of interior's standards for qualifications. because in san francisco is a certified government, it is important that members of the board meet the specific criteria for the individual positions. we would recommend that you continue your search. there are many good candidates out there. thank you for your time. >> i am here to oppose the nomination. i served on the landmarks board. we were all political
appointees. one reason prop j was passed was to give professionalism. we don't believe he has -- he would be a good at-large member. to be on the professional commission, we need to reconsider it. thank you. >> howard wong, i'm an architect and have worked on historic structures. also, with many of my fellow architects and preservation architects who are a specialized
field, architects do not claim to be historic preservation architect. it often requires degrees and a graduate degrees. they also rely on professional historians. we believe by the very nature of rfp's, historians and preservation architects often have established credentials, academic requirements, just as a doctor, lawyer, engineer. all of these fields jhave logical credentials. a historian works on many issues. continuation reports. preservation criteria.
historic district criteria. the academically inclined work that takes years of actual practice. perhaps internships as an architect or a lawyer might achieve them. the charter amendment is legal language. it is the city charter now. it is something that the residents are expected to abide by. looking at the text of prop j that created the positions for the historic preservation.
professional qualifications, federal guidelines. just as you and your respective professions. we did not study engineering to become an architect. these are aspects of the charter that have to be upheld. i think the rules committee would be looked at as a somewhat -- i won't say the word. thank you. >> i am speaking in opposition
to mr. johns. i was appointed to the original landmarks board. i served on the board for 13 years under four mayors. after leading the board in 1980, i started my own preservation business during which i served over 200 clients. perhaps more important, i was on the steering committee for the development of prop j. we specifically did the qualifications for each of the seats except seat 7 so we would have a qualified, professional group of people doing this work.
if you look at the language, you will see that the clear intent was a professional historian. i don't think he has any of those qualifications. i have to ask you to find someone else or ask the mayor to find someone else. there some historic preservation officials on staff. most young people don't even know how to do research. they don't know how to thoroughly evaluate other historians' intent with architectural surveys.
we have to send word to the mayor that he needs to live up to the charter. and this appointment and others did not go through because there were nominations of people that were not qualified. we were able to have those go way. thank you. supervisor kim: if there is no further public comment, public comment is now closed. motion? any comments?
>> i watched the hearing and i tend to agree with supervisors campos and mar. knowing him as well as i do, i have everything with confidence that he will be a fantastic public servant and will service commission well. -- serve this commission well. i am happy to move forward the confirmation of his appointment. that would be moving forward item number 3. supervisor farrell: from my point of view as well, i would agree with supervisor elsbernd. also, comment that having gotten to know him over the last year, i can't think of a person who is not only a great citizen but
would also served us very well. supervisor kim: there is a motion to move forward item 3 and table number 4. just my comments. i appreciate the public coming to speak on this item and i and appreciate centering the discussion strictly on qualifications and not on the person. i do not know him as well, but i appreciate his enthusiasm and his work here. i see no reason not to support his nomination. my one concern is that i would like to see more diversity on the committee, women and people of color. i appreciate the consortium 14 recommendations -- forwarding
recommendations and the verse candidates. if there is no objection. thank you. madame clerk, items 5 and 6? >> motion approving the mayor's nomination to the historic preservation commission. motion rejecting the mayor's nomination to the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for my consideration of reappointment. i have served as seat 6. i have served 4 years as
preservation advisory board. i believe my specialty with my extensive history is actually in the repurchasing of buildings and helping the city move forward. i believe architectural history gives diversity in the look and feel of the city. our greatest asset is our buildings. we are moving forward as a delicate balance. i take extreme care in our decisions and i look forward to moving forward with another four years. supervisor kim: any questions? we will open up to public comment. thank you so much for being here. >> i want to talk about his
work and said that in my experience, having to comply with guidelines and experience. use of people with all corners of the room testified in support. if -- testify ain support. >> i would like to speak in favor of his reappointment to the commission over the last six months. i have been impressed by his dedication, level of thoughtfulness on the commission.
i would also like to add that he has reached an independently to me -- reached out independently to me for historic preservation. and to enhance their understanding. >> thank you. >> howard wong, speaking for the preservation consortium. with support his appointment. and his great knowledge of the building process, the constraints that it might have for a variety of issues, he leads a very interesting course. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you.
seein gng no further -- i believe we have one more speaker. >> i want to support the nomination as i did on january 3. supervisor kim: supervisors, and comments? -- any comments? without objections, i would like to move forward item 5 and table no. 6. madam court, may we hear items 7? >> resolution concerning the appointment of harry kim and herb cohn to the san francisco relocation appeals board,